February 22, 2021
At 1:34 pm
On Monday, the justices issued the first regularly scheduled list of orders since late January.Perhaps the most notable part of the order is that of the judge Denies former President Donald Trump’s request to block subpoenas for his financial records, But the list of orders is also important in other ways: the justices added three hours of debate to the fall file, and they refused to deal with the lingering disputes caused by the 2020 election.
Approve new cases
Monday Order At the beginning of a debate, the debate lost two of the most high-profile cases, including funding the former president’s border wall, and the Trump administration’s criticism of seeking asylum in the United States due to policy changes. Immigrants’ “Remain in Mexico” policy. Announced by President Joe Biden. Of the three issues the court agreed to review on Monday, two may be disputed or decided on the next term before encountering a similar fate.
The judge approved three cases – American Medical Association v. Cochran, Cochran v. Baltimore Mayor and City Council with Oregon v Cochrane -The Trump administration issued challenging regulations under Title X of the Public Health Services Act, a federal grant program to support family planning and reproductive health services for poor women. A provision of Article 1008 of Title X prohibits the funds of Title X from being “used in programs that use abortion as a method of family planning.” In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a new regulation under Title X that prohibits clinics receiving federal funds through the program from providing abortion services. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the rule in response to two challenges, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturned it.The Biden administration has ordered a review of the 2019 rules, but According to Politico It has not yet indicated what changes it will make or when.
The judges also approved the federal government’s request to weigh the “public charges” rules that apply to admit immigrants into the United States. If the government believes that non-citizens may rely on government assistance, that is, “public accusations,” federal immigration laws prohibit non-citizens from obtaining green cards. In 2019, the Trump administration’s definition of “public charges” is broader than in the past, referring to non-citizens who have received various government benefits (such as medical assistance, food stamps or housing assistance) for more than 12 months within a three-year period . After two different federal appeals courts ruled on the challenger, the federal government came to the Supreme Court and asked the judge to hear the case. The judge agreed to review the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, possibly because the then judge Amy Coney Barrett (Amy Coney Barrett) participated in the ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which would require her to withdraw the appeal. .Biden Administration Order a review Public fee rules in early February.
in Wooden v. United States, The Supreme Court will once again have the authority to interpret the Armed Occupational Criminal Law, a federal law that requires heavier penalties for repeat offenders of gun crimes. The case began in 1997, when William Wooden broke into a small warehouse in Georgia and stole it from 10 different units, leading him to plead guilty to 10 burglaries. The question facing the Supreme Court is whether Wooden has committed crimes on different occasions. According to ACCA’s regulations, he will be convicted for possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony and must extend his sentence to 15 years. Wooden filed the petition alone for review, but it is now represented by Arnold and Porter’s lawyer Allon Kedem. He argued in his defense that “not because the different “cases” happened sequentially, but in different “cases”. “The crime was committed”-Wooden should only face 21 to 26 months in prison. Kedem concluded: “A night in a storage facility is not an’armed professional crime’.”
The election-related petition was rejected
The judge declined to review a state court ruling that extended the deadline for mailing ballots in Pennsylvania during the November 2020 election. The ruling on the merits of the case will not affect the voting results in Pennsylvania, but it may have a significant impact on future elections.
These two situations Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Demethylfentanyl with Coman v. Pennsylvania Democratic PartyThe Pennsylvania Democrats challenged the state’s absentee ballot system in response to the pandemic, and this resulted in this situation. According to the state constitution, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the deadline for absentee ballots to November 6, three days after the election day. The state court ruled that any ballots with a visible postmark after the election day will not be counted, and the ballots with a postmark before the election day (and ballots without a postmark or an unclear postmark) will be counted towards their receipt on November 6. To.
Republican lawmakers and the Pennsylvania Republican Party went to the Supreme Court in late September and asked the judge to shelve the state court’s ruling. They argued that some of the rulings allowed the counting of ballots when the postmark was not clear, which would lead to counting of ballots sent after election day, which violated federal election laws and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court was deadlocked in Barrett’s confirmation of the previously issued order, allowing the state Supreme Court’s decision to be retained. Four judges including Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would Approval of the Republican Party’s application.
Republicans from Pennsylvania returned to the Supreme Court a few days later, urging the justices to handle the case and make a ruling on the substance of the dispute before election day. The court rejected the request so that the petition can be reviewed quickly, leaving the extension deadline for 2020 election day. Alito issued a statement on the refusal of the acceleration motion and explained that, “I would very much like to issue a motion. The state court before the election day ruled whether it is constitutional.” Alito said: “This issue is of national importance, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling is very likely to violate the US Constitution.” However, Alito continued: “At such a late date, there is simply not enough time to decide the pre-election. Problem.” In addition, Alito added that the state has instructed the county election commission to separate votes received after election day but before the extended deadline, which will provide a remedy for Republicans in Pennsylvania-if In the end, the court overturned the ballots from the final count. Before verifying the results, the state court’s ruling.
In a brief order on Monday, the justice rejected two petitions. Thomas disagreed with the decision in an 11-page opinion. He admitted that the extension of the deadline “seems to affect very few votes and cannot change the results of any federal election.” However, Thomas continued: “May not be in the future. It will be like this.” He believes that because these cases are “an ideal opportunity to resolve the election rules that non-legislators must make and do it before the next election cycle,” he believes the court “refused to do so.” “
Gorsuch agrees that Alito also disagrees. Like Thomas, he emphasized that the Pennsylvania case will not affect the outcome of the 2020 election, but will “provide valuable guidance for future elections.” Alito also opposes the suggestion that there is no need for a review because these cases are not. Then there are on-site disputes, and similar disputes are unlikely to occur in the future. He pointed out (among other things) that the primary election of Pennsylvania congressional candidates will be held within 15 months, and observed that although we “hope that the pandemic will no longer affect daily life by next spring,” this is “uncertain.” “.
The judges also denied several other petitions elected in 2020 without any public objections, including Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), he tried to prevent proof of the Pennsylvania election results, Former President Donald Trump, Also challenged the results of Pennsylvania. Both Kelly and Trump’s petitions were rejected, and the judges did not ask state and local government officials to respond because the latter gave up the right to oppose the petition.
Thomas also disagrees with the court’s Bridge Aina Le’a v. Hawaii Land Use CommissionThis poses a challenge to the constitutionality of the Commission’s designation of 1,000 acres of land for agricultural purposes on the island of Hawaii.As John Elwood in Relist watch, The plaintiff is a developer, he plans to build hundreds of houses on the site before the committee designates. A federal district court in Hawaii reached an agreement with the developer that the committee’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional “seizure” of the land, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision. The developer came to the Supreme Court and asked the judge to weigh the standards that constitute “regulation and pricing.” In other words, the action taken by the government is not to actually take private property from its owner, but to impose too many restrictions on the owner’s property. Using this attribute can effectively take away the attribute.
Thomas pointed out in a two-page opinion that the Supreme Court’s “current regulations require precedents to be improved.” Thomas criticizes that in most cases, the standards set by the courts are “non-standard”, leading to “significantly different results” in the same facts. Thomas argued: “It’s bad to know the test once you know it. If one court sees it, the other court doesn’t.” Thomas argued that instead, the court should clearly state that “there are no rules or regulations” or “what Happens when”.
The court also refused to accept three cases involving property disputes between religious sects and renunciations: All Saints’ Church (Fort Worth) v. Diocese of Fort Worth, Bishop’s Church v Diocese of Fort Worth with Schultz v. Seattle Presbyterian Church. The court decided not to intervene and there was no obvious objection.
The judge took no action against several famous people petition Have been there for a few weeks or months-most notably Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health OrganizationThis is a challenge to Mississippi law, which prohibits most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
The justices will hold their next meeting again on Friday, February 26. We look forward to receiving orders from this meeting on Monday, March 1.
This article is Originally published in Haoge Court.